IHC judges seek SJC meeting over ‘interference’ in judicial affairs

ISLAMABAD: Six serving judges of Islamabad High Court (IHC) penned a letter to Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), urging it to summon a judicial convention to review matter of “interference of intelligence agencies with judicial functions”, ARY News reported on Tuesday.

Six IHC top judges – including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Baqir Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Salman Rafat Imtiaz – penned the letter to SJC in the aftermath of Supreme Court’s March 22 judgement on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s dismissal case.

In the letter, the top judges sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with regard to the duty of a “judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies, that seek to interfere with discharge of his/her official functions and qualify as intimidation”.

It pointed out the Supreme Court’s March 22 judgement on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s dismissal case, in which it has been declared that Justice Siddiqui was wrongfully removed on the basis of a SJC report dated 11.10.2018, and would be deemed to have retired as a judge of the IHC.

“Justice Siddiqui had been removed after he had publicly alleged that operatives of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), led by Major General Faiz Hameed (DG-C of ISI), were determining the constitution of benches at IHC and interfering with proceedings of the Accountability Court Islamabad,” the letter noted.

The verdict noted that the SJC proceeded against Justice Siddiqui on the “assumption that the truth or falseness of the allegations levelled” by the former judge was “irrelevant”.

It also noted that the SJC opined that Justice Siddiqui had failed to substantiate, independently corroborate, substantiate or prove the allegations levelled by him.

The IHC judges, in their letter, noted that the code of conduct for judges prescribed by SJC provides no guidance on how they “must react to and or report incidents that are tantamount to intimidation and interfere with judicial independence”.

The judges said that they “believe it is imperative to inquire into and determine whether there exists a continuing policy on the part of the executive branch of the state” to meddle in judicial affairs.

“Such institutional consultation might then assist the Supreme Court to consider how best to protect independence of the judiciary, put in place a mechanism to affix liability for those who undermine such independence, and clarify for the benefit of individual judges the course of action they must take when they find themselves at the receiving end of interference and/or intimidation by members of the executive,” it added.